posted at 8:38 pm on January 3, 2010 by Allahpundit

Not the first guy I would have thought of if you’d asked me to guess which Fox News anchor would call on Tiger to embrace Jesus, but oh well. I’m as ignorant of Buddhism as I am everything else, but isn’t one of the key teachings that all suffering is caused by, er, desire and that the path to serenity lies through freeing yourself from that desire? In which case, Tige’s problem might not be that he’s got the wrong religion but that the one he’s got hasn’t quite penetrated yet. No pun intended.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Maybe. I’m suggesting that if a person suggests a religious path to redemption, he should suggest a) a single faith and not faith in general, and b) that that faith should be one the suggester knows.

If AP or others feel it inappropriate to suggest any faith to help with recovery, that’s fine. But the complaints I read seemed to suggest that there are other paths that might be as good as Christianity, and seemed to beg the question as to why Brit Hume didn’t suggest them.

I’m with blatantblue on this one. A couple of rounds with C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity tends to seduce the most stubborn intellect. If I were a non-theist, if one were to “invent” a religion, I’d say the fundamentals of a suffering, forgiving and loving worldview is simply sublime. Nothing really touches the Passion in terms of a metaphor for the most vaulted reaches of the human condition. I have yet to discover a more powerful liberation than that of the act of forgiveness.

You are exactly right and I’m sick to death of people defending him and “pundits” claiming that before long he’ll be back on top with all new endorsements. Why do we allow Madison Avenue to decide our role models for us? What makes Tiger Wood’s endorsement of a watch or a car valuable to anyone?

anniekc on January 3, 2010 at 9:59 PM

Because it makes money for the corporations that pay Madison Ave. They only sell what people ask to buy.

Rich men do not go to heaven. Tiger would have to do a lot to be redeemed.

“For it is by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the GIFT of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.”
Ephesians 2: 8,9

Tiger would not have to do anything to be redeemed except by faith, receive the gift of redemption that God offers us all. His grace is something we don’t deserve and cannot earn. It is a gift. The good news about that is, since we can do nothing to earn it, we can do nothing to loose it.

Oy … The Eightfold Path doesn’t detail anything about which actions, just to pursue the “right” actions in eight different areas, with “right” being open to interpretation and not canonically specified. What I said in my comment was absolutely true and described the nature of Buddhism.

Buddhist enlightenment is a state of mind, not a prescription of actions.

neurosculptor on January 3, 2010 at 9:25 PM

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Buddhism has an enormous amount to say about actions leading to enlightenment. The Eightfold Path is one thing; there are others.

The idea is, when you begin the journey to enlightenment, obviously you’re not enlightened, so what can you do to help the process along? How should one conduct oneself so as to attain enlightenment? Obviously, Buddhism is big on the mind, so there’s an enormous part of the answer that deals with meditation. Ok, what else? Is that it? Well, no, it turns out. There’s more to it than meditation. You don’t become enlightened by meditation alone. For one thing, there are the “Three Jewels” (the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha) — these are the example of the Buddha’s life (Buddha), the Scriptural/Academic tradition which encompasses a discipline of monastic life and study (Dharma), and the practice of leading one’s life within a community of other Buddhists (Sangha).

Is there still more? Yep, lots more.

It turns out that one becomes enlightened also by adopting the ethics of an enlightened individual… You conduct yourself in your daily life as if you were enligtened — and this conduct, along with other behaviors, of which meditation is important, but only one — leads to the experience of enlightenment. How does an enlightened individual conduct him or herself? According to the Eightfold Path. You hear the phrase “fake it ’til you make it” in 12-step programs — the Eightfold Path is the same. If you’re not enlightened you act as if you are and this will aid the process.

Further, enlightenment is not solely the attainment of some abstract state of mind with no impact on the wider world. An important consequence of enlightenment is the exercise of profound compassion for all living things — the exercise of actions to help end others’ suffering. This is so important in Buddhist thought that there is a Buddhist “saint” (I guess that’s the best word) called the Boddhisattva who embodies this principle. The Boddhiattva is an enlightened being who deliberately forgoes the entry into Nirvana that he has achieved, choosing instead to incarnate on the earth to demonstrate compassion and help end others’ suffering.

You said in your initial post:

Buddhism has nothing to say about what constitutes enlightened “action”, let alone actions that specifically lead to enlightenment, other than meditation.

As I’ve shown, these statements are wrong — Buddhism has an enormous amount to say about enlightened “action”, and gives specific ethical guidance to followers. Buddhism views compassionate, ethical action as so important to the attainment of enlightenment that it’s embodied in the figure of the Boddhisattva, and reified in scripture as the Three Jewels and the Fourth Noble Truth/Eightfold Path. What you’ve said about Buddhism is completely false and betrays only the shallowest, most superficial knowledge of Buddhism, at best.

Maybe. I’m suggesting that if a person suggests a religious path to redemption, he should suggest a) a single faith and not faith in general, and b) that that faith should be one the suggester knows.

If AP or others feel it inappropriate to suggest any faith to help with recovery, that’s fine. But the complaints I read seemed to suggest that there are other paths that might be as good as Christianity, and seemed to beg the question as to why Brit Hume didn’t suggest them.

applebutter on January 3, 2010 at 10:04 PM

I agree its not super courageous to suggest the generic majority religion of America.

Ahh, the “cult” chestnut. Do we meet any of the other typical cult characteristics? Glad to hear you are operating from such under such a big tent by the way. So, does your belief system allow for Mormons to achieve salvation?

The Jesus of the Bible is the only eternally begotten Son of the Eternal God Who was always God and Who has no one (e.g. father) above or before Him.

The Jesus of Mormonism was born, in time, of a god who had a father and mother.
The Jesus of Mormonism has a brother.

Two different Jesuses. Salvation is, according to the Jesus of the Bible, in and through no one but Himself.

davidk on January 3, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Davidk, I agree with your synopsis of the difference in our beliefs, but not that my interpretation is incorrect. Let us both approach our own salvation with fear and trembling.

Yes, the Bible contains no formal doctrines about the Trinity and other doctrines. But those doctrines are derived inductively from the statements therein.

Over the years I’ve heard a lot of people comment that they didn’t need doctrines, commentaries, Bible teachers. They just read the Bible and interpreted it themselves and usually ended up with one or more silly or aberrant doctrines of their own.

I admire Brit Hume tremendously. He retired because he really wanted to spend more time with his family and with his renewed interest in his Christian faith. Brit is a good man and I believe that he is totally sincere in his hopes and advice for Tiger.

After reading some of the posts in this thread, one can only conclude that devout Christians are utter morons.

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 9:44 PM
So you’ll have to excuse all of us who didn’t immediately interpret it to mean.

It has nothing to do with my beliefs. To go out on national TV as a Fox news/political commentator and say “my religion is better than yours” is stupid. And people who agree with Hume are just as stupid.

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 9:52 PM

You know we can’t all call the Psychic Hotline to find out what you meant instead of what you said.

I take it you’re so stupid you don’t even know what the word ’stupid’ means.

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:07 PM

You know what, asswipe? I have yet to see you post anything here of any value. Further, the majority of your comments contain spelling and grammatical errors. And you call me stupid? Hell, Mensa has my IQ at 174. What the hell is yours, jackass?

Your head is so far up your ass, you’ve got sh*t for brains, you worthless cretin. Now go slink back under that rock where you came from.

No, they don’t. They believe in a number of Gods, each God has his own world (basically), and each God was once a man.
right2bright on January 3, 2010 at 9:53 PM

I guess the doctrine of Theosis wasn’t taught by the early Christians.

If Athanasius, Augustine, Saint Irenaeus, Saint Cyril, Saint Maximus the Confessor, Saint Clement of Alexandria, and others can teach the doctrine of deification/theosis and still be accepted as Christians, why are Latter-day Saints said to be non-Christian for such beliefs?

Most of the Creeds are a result of fierce debates followed by a vote on what would make the official doctrine of Christianity. The Nicene Creed as it came to be known has since been amended several times beginning with the Athanasian and Chalcedonian Creeds in 451 AD and, more recently, the Westminster Confession of Faith in 1646 AD.

Conservative Samizdat on January 3, 2010 at 10:00 PM

I am afraid that you have been fed propaganda…actually as I had stated the creeds actually were from Irenaeus, at around 140BC. The heated debates wasn’t from the “trinity” that you pronounce, but from removing Arianism, a form of Modalism. What it meant was some in power, were no longer in power. No surprise that people fight to retain power…just look at global warming…
The fought over Apollinarianism, in which some believed that Jesus did not have a human spirit…
Regardless, if you like, I have a list of scriptures backing up the trinity.
The small changes were not doctrinal changes, but some was shortening or lengthening the Creeds.
Good try on minimizing…but you need more then just a few minutes of Googling to understand…

Yes, the Bible contains no formal doctrines about the Trinity and other doctrines. But those doctrines are derived inductively from the statements therein.

Over the years I’ve heard a lot of people comment that they didn’t need doctrines, commentaries, Bible teachers. They just read the Bible and interpreted it themselves and usually ended up with one or more silly or aberrant doctrines of their own.

It is a mistake to disregard totally the wisdom of the ages.

davidk on January 3, 2010 at 10:09 PM

Well said. If you look back at some cult leaders, you’ll see that they were lone wolves who decided to interpret on their own, disregarding the wisdom of the church fathers. Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones, David Korec, even Charles Manson, all succumbed to the temptation of thinking that he alone can figure it all out.

ou know we can’t all call the Psychic Hotline to find out what you meant instead of what you said.

Cindy Munford on January 3, 2010 at 10:10 PM

What I said is perfectly clear. The topic is Hume’s comments on Fox News Sunday not Christianity is the best religion. Anyone who believes Hume did the right thing is a moron, anyone who believes Christianity is the best religion is not.

Abraham had to commit to give up his son to prove he was not attached to his riches.

PrezHussein on January 3, 2010 at 10:04 PM

No, God’s covenant was made with Abraham long before agreed to sacrifice Isaac. It was Abraham’s faith in Christ (whom God identified to him as the “offspring” to come) which assured his salvation. The attempted sacrifice of Isaac had nothing to do with Abraham’s riches that the bible reveals. I don’t see how sacrificing his son would show a lack of attachment to his material riches. It did show a faith in God, though, as the NT tells us Abraham was convinced God would raise Isaac from the dead if sacrificed. (end of bible study for benefit of those completely uninterested)

Ahh, the “cult” chestnut. Do we meet any of the other typical cult characteristics? Glad to hear you are operating from such under such a big tent by the way. So, does your belief system allow for Mormons to achieve salvation?

its not exactly a chestnut when you call every other denomination of christianity apostate, and you are the only true way…and if you’re the only true way, then what about the rest of us?

don’t know about salvation, its an individual, not a group thing…

why do you mormons even want to be called christians, when the rest of us are apostate?

@sisterchristian
Thank you for the link. The fact remains that the specific details of Olmec, Toltec, Inca, and Maya remains bear little to no resemblance to the Nephite or Lamanite civilizations described by Smith.

What I said is perfectly clear. The topic is Hume’s comments on Fox News Sunday not Christianity is the best religion. Anyone who believes Hume did the right thing is a moron, anyone who believes Christianity is the best religion is not.

Because there is a difference in reading and analyzing 12,000 documents (most written at the time of Jesus or withing decades), over 2,000 years…and believing in a document pulled out of a hat, read off of stones that have disappeared…by a man who claimed to have specific hieroglyphics that turned out to be Egyptian burial rites, and where none, not one shred of evidence, have ever been found that the “tribes” of North America that he said were here have never been found. All stated by a man who took child brides and married other men’s wives…other then that, go ahead and believe that 160 year old religion.
And, just for kicks, you keep stating that the creeds were wrong, so outline where they are “wrong” and substitute your “right”…using only the bible.

Tiger would not have to do anything to be redeemed except by faith, receive the gift of redemption that God offers us all. His grace is something we don’t deserve and cannot earn. It is a gift. The good news about that is, since we can do nothing to earn it, we can do nothing to loose it.

parteagirl on January 3, 2010 at 10:05 PM

Jesus has paid the price for all of our sins, but he requires obedience not just faith or lip-service to bestoy this gift.

It’s that he said it on Fox News Sunday and he put down Buddhism doing it. What if Wolf Blitzer on CNN Sunday said that the only way for America to beat terrorism is to convert to Judaism from Christianity because one believes in an eye for an eye and the other believes in turn the other cheek and love your enemies?

Whoever will be saved shall, above all else,
hold the catholic faith.
Which faith, except everyone keeps whole and undefiled,
without doubt he will perish eternally.
And the catholic faith is this,
that we worship one God in three persons
and three persons in one God,
neither confusing the persons
nor dividing the substance.
For there is one person of the Father,
another of the Son,
and another of the Holy Spirit.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one:
the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
The Father uncreated,
the Son uncreated,
and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
The Father incomprehensible,
the Son incomprehensible,
and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
The Father eternal,
the Son eternal,
and the Holy Spirit eternal.
And yet there are not three eternals
but one eternal.
As there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles
but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
So likewise the Father is almighty,
the Son almighty,
and the Holy Spirit almighty.
And yet they are not three almighties
but one almighty.
So the Father is God,
the Son is God,
and the Holy Spirit is God.
And yet there are not three gods;
but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord,
the Son Lord,
and the Holy Spirit Lord.
And yet they are not three lords
but one Lord.
For as we are compelled by the Christian truth to acknowledge every person by himself
to be both God and Lord,
So we cannot by the catholic faith
say that there are three Gods or three Lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created;
but begotten.
The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, neither made nor created nor begotten
but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three Fathers;
one Son, not three Sons;
one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
And in this trinity none is before or after another;
none is greater or less than another;
But the whole three persons
are coeternal together and coequal,
so that in all things, as is aforesaid,
the Unity in Trinity
and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped..
He, therefore, that will be saved is compelled thus to think of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation
that he also believe faithfully the incarnation
of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the right faith is
that we believe and confess
that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
is God and man;
God of the substance of the Father,
begotten before the worlds;
and man of the substance of his mother,
born in the world;
Perfect God and perfect man,
of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead,
and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood;
Who, although he is God and man,
yet he is not two but one Christ.
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh,
but by taking the manhood into God;.
One altogether,
not by confusion of substance,
but by unity of person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man,
so God and man is one Christ;
Who suffered for our salvation;
descended into hell;
rose again the third day from the dead.
He ascended into heaven;
he sits at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty,
from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead.
At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies
and will give an account of their own works.
And they that have done good will go into life everlasting;
and they that have done evil,
into everlasting fire.
This is the catholic faith which
except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

Excellent post skydaddy, with the worlds information at our fingertips it is fairly easy to locate the truth regarding what mormans stand for along with any other religion. Unfortunately these days the term “Christianity” is misused frequently to represent ideals that Christ himself opposed. The Bible speaks the truth, and by faith, either you accept that or you don’t.

It’s that he said it on Fox News Sunday and he put down Buddhism doing it. What if Wolf Blitzer on CNN Sunday said that the only way for America to beat terrorism is to convert to Judaism from Christianity because one believes in an eye for an eye and the other believes in turn the other cheek and love your enemies?

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:24 PM

One can disagree with the view without freaking out that it was said, unlike you.

It’s that he said it on Fox News Sunday and he put down Buddhism doing it. What if Wolf Blitzer on CNN Sunday said that the only way for America to beat terrorism is to convert to Judaism from Christianity because one believes in an eye for an eye and the other believes in turn the other cheek and love your enemies?

Norman Blizter on January 3, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Well, first off, Brit isn’t a news anchor or even a reporter any more. So he was giving his opinion and I think he was entitled to do so. And second, I didn’t think he was “putting down Buddhism.” He was simply stating the differences between the two religions.

Actually, I find it interesting that Tiger would be a Buddhist and then be a serial adulterer. I guess he doesn’t follow the 5 Precepts and isn’t interested in truly following the Path. So it appears he doesn’t take his religion very seriously.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with Harper’s Bible Dictionary, not me.

Conservative Samizdat on January 3, 2010 at 10:28 PM

So you restate things that you have no idea whether they are right or wrong?
At least man up and admit that you agree…
Your snarky come back shows who you are…you quote someone as authority and when challenged you feign innocence…

its not exactly a chestnut when you call every other denomination of christianity apostate, and you are the only true way…and if you’re the only true way, then what about the rest of us?

don’t know about salvation, its an individual, not a group thing…

why do you mormons even want to be called christians, when the rest of us are apostate?

right4life on January 3, 2010 at 10:16 PM

Nice dodge. I agree with you that salvation is a personal thing between one and God, but it still doesn’t answer my question “Based on right4life’s belief system, can someone who is a Mormon be saved and go to heaven”? As I was pondering how you might answer, I read your response to conservative samizdat at 10:21 and figured it out for myself.

As far as why we want to be called Chritians? Because we glory in Christ. Based on the Christlike love I feel eminating from you, trust me, I’m fine if you cool kids don’t want to invite me to your birthday party. However, that doesn’t change the fact that I believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ.

As far as the answer to your question, “what about the rest of us”, I assume you already know what Mormons believe, or a distorted version of it, but I’ll humor you nonetheless. Click here, and then on the “additional information” tab.

Jesus has paid the price for all of our sins, but he requires obedience not just lip-service to bestow this gift.

“Faith without works is dead.” James 2:26

I think we’re saying the same thing. After we receive God’s saving grace, our lives become a living “thank you” for what has ALREADY done for us, not for what we hope He WILL do.
parteagirl on January 3, 2010 at 10:29 PM

Well saying it like you did is confusing because what if we are a living “thank you” for twenty years an then go to Argentina to cheat on our wife in a moment of weakness. Do you automatically go back to saving grace when your plane lands back in the U.S.?

Only through Jesus Christ can we reach the Father ultimately, although there are some cases where someone who has never been exposed during their earthly life to the formal Christian religion can be saved.